I believe this claim should be considered under the Special Exposure Cohort
Section of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation
Program Act (EEOICPA). I respectfully ask that you consider the
information and documents | am submitting and make the favorable decision
to award designation as a Special Exposure Cohort.

If you should wish to have more information or clarification of these things I
am submitting, I welcome the opportunity to comply.

Sincerely,

[3b


Page _/J7
CONCLUSION

Mathieson Chemical Company, Pasadena, Texas is a “Covered Facility”
under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program
Act (EEOICPA).

For the time period 1951 — 1953, Mathieson Chemical Company had a
Government contract to extract uranium oxides out of phosphoric acid
compounds in a pilot study for the Atomic Energy Commission. No records
were kept of this. This was at a time when uranium was in demand due to
weapons and the war, and a government contract could be quite lucrative.
No one really knows what was going on at Mathieson. No one can find a
contract. I have documentation that Company officials say no contract can
be found. Contracts were either lost or destroyed. Correspondence that I
have found also indicates that Government officials can not find a contract.
It seems apparent that no one has a copy of the contract or contracts Some
documentation mentions that Mathieson Chemical had “at least one
contract”, and reference is made to” no copies of contracts”. No records
were kept. No one knows.

No monitoring was done. This is documented in correspondence between
company officials and Government officials. Affidavits of Mathieson
employees also confirm this. Employees, in their affidavits, also state that
no safety precautions were taken, no warning signs were posted, no
monitoring devices were worn and they did not know that they or anyone
else was in danger of exposure to hazardous materials. In an affidavit from a
gentleman who was an International Representative of the Oil Chemical and
Atomic Workers International Union at that time and worked to organize the
employees of Mathieson Chemical Company into Local 4-367, he also states
that he did not know of the presence of uranium in the plant.

The sudden death o an employee in the Lab at
Mathieson Chemical, has raised many questions that have not been
answered. In 1953, at the time of this death, other employees did not know
of the presence of uranium in the plant. No one would have suspected at
that time that his death could have been caused by his working conditions.
We still do not know. It seemed unusual for Government officials and


/M¢

officials of Mathieson Chemical to visit his widow at her home.
died later of cancer and one of the daughters died due to
a brain tumor.

In the first Dose Reconstruction Report made for my claim, monitoring was
said to have been done. However, this was at the time when my

was believed to have been an employee of Blockson Chemical Company in
Joliet, [linois. It is unclear to me what was used in the second Dose
Reconstruction Report that was made. Confusion exists about the timing as
well as other things on that report. This one was made from a “one-size-fits-
all- when- we-don’t- know” Technical Bulletin. Records from the
Mathieson Chemical Company in Pasadena, Texas were not used. There
were no records. No records were kept. This lack of records is verified in
correspondence between Company officials and Government officials.

No credible information from the Mathieson Chemical Company worksite
could have been used. This work was top secret. Any information coming
from the company at any time should be discredited because these were
people who gave only information that would perpetuate their
unconscionable secret. No monitoring was done. No records were kept. No
information from this worksite was used in the Dose Reconstruction Report
because there was no information. The earliest record of information from
this worksite was of a survey made in 1977, approximately 25 years later,
and this was not documented until 1980. No one knows how much uranium
was actually in the plant and no one knows the extent of the danger from
residual contamination over the years. According to Appendix A-1 Residual
Radioactive Contamination — Summary of All Sites (As of October 31,
2008), Page 8 of 13, the Revised Period of Potential Residual Contamination
for Mathieson Chemical Co. worksite is 1954-present.

When I heard that a law had been passed to compensate victims of this type
of situation, I thought that now “they” knew what caused my husband’s
cancers. I was mistaken. Although correspondence implies that Dose
Reconstruction Reports are “claimant friendly”, how can I and my friends
believe that? I have had my doubts as to whether the EEOICPA was made
for people like us. Mathieson Chemical Company is the “forgotten” plant.
No records were kept.

Government agencies do not agree. One agency believes that sufficient
information is not available to determine responsibility for cleanup of this


huge (240 acre) pile of toxic, radioactive waste materials. Yet another
agency believes that sufficient information is available for making a Dose
Reconstruction Report. How can this worksite be compared to other
worksites when there is nothing to compare? How could the making of a
Dose Reconstruction Report possibly be feasible?

What we do know is that many former employees have died of cancer. The
employees at Mathieson did not know about this uranium. How can anyone
say, with credibility, that these cancers were not caused by radiation
exposure at this worksite. These employees were placed in harms way
without their knowledge or consent. Mathieson Chemical kept this secret,
not only for the period of 1951 — 1953, but for decades. I thought the
EEOICPA was passed to compensate the victims of companies like this.

My was diagnosed with cancer in 1986 and was
diagnosed with cancer in 1994. In 1969, at age 40, he was
diagnosed with _ >and his twas removed. In
1994 shortly befor: died, his doctor told me that my was
cancerous. The cancer of the are both
shown o death certificate. I have very little information about the

because this was so long ago. This is mentioned on doctor’s
reports which I have submitted. I do not know if it was cancer. I also have
very little information about th cancer. We did not request an autopsy.
At that time we still did not know about the presence of uranium at
Mathieson Chemical Company. These four diseases are among the “22
specified cancers” listed in the EEOICPA.

Whei became an employee at Mathieson, he worked in the
Labor Pool. Later he became an operator, a pipefitter, and then a supervisor
of the pipefitters. For more on this, see Exhibit D. He was a very active
person and could be called frequently to almost any part of the plant. He
was a Union Steward and for some years he was Chairman of the
Workmen’s Committee for the Union. In that capacity, he could be called to
any part of the plant where anyone had a grievance or potential problem.

His job duties as well as his volunteer employee activities could have placed
him in all areas of the plant frequently.

I filed a survivor claim on August 19, 2002. I was denied. The last action
taken on my claim was in 2005.

135